qkkl posted:I wouldn't consider that to be a private conversation, since he was talking to an audience. Maybe there is a quote from one of Hitler's close associates where they say they had a one-on-one talk with Hitler about jews where Hitler said he thought jews were responsible for major negative events in Germany. Addendum: why would a report of a one-on-one conversation be more reliable than one in front of a small but close group?
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 00:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 00:39 |
|
|
504 posted:So in an attempt to ensure British supremacy they threw their whole empire into a meat grinder? In the early 20th century, there was some really dysfunctional diplomacy going on, along with some major international realignments, and Britain was looking for friends. At the same time, Germany was on the rise, having very abruptly become a major dominant force in Europe, and a lot of Germans felt like their country wasn't getting the respect or concessions it deserved from the established powers like France and Britain. Although there were plenty of connections between the British and German governments, the German government felt like the British needed them more than they needed the British and didn't think that Britain would ever make up with France, so they tended to push things and overplay their hand in hopes of extracting a heavy price from Britain in exchange for the friendship of the mighty German Empire. This was aggravated by the fact that Wilhelm II was notoriously unreliable, and the fact that German naval policy was pretty clearly aimed at building a fleet capable of taking on the British (who didn't consider that a very friendly move). Meanwhile, France, preoccupied with the danger of potential conflicts with Germany in mainland Europe, was in no mood to fixate on petty colonial disputes and happily compromised and de-escalated away most of their major disputes with Britain in exchange for vague promises of friendship and support that somehow mutated into an alliance when no one was looking.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 00:28
|
|
|
A White Guy posted:You can tell McNamara felt serious regret over what happened, but he still felt justified for doing it. On a level, I kind of agree with him. The entirety strategy of the Japanese government at the end of the war was to make the conquest of Japan so bloody that the Allies would balk at the losses. Instead, the Allies showed that they'd murder millions for victory, and that they had the weaponry to do just that, without the absurd losses that the Japanese were hoping for. this. as awful as it was, i think the bombs and the USSR knocking on their door in manchuria forced the government to surrender. also i have weirdly never been able to fully hate Mcnamara, mostly because he knows that all the awful poo poo he did over the decades, you can tell he looks back with hindsight and sees how loving awful alot of the decisions were. which is better then rumsfeld who doesn't feel poo poo about anything. Disinterested posted:He was utterly committed and private conversations bore that out. It was not at all a pretext. There is also not really a reason to search for a pretext for genocide if you don't utterly despise a race of people. In any event, insofar as his circle and many of his senior commanders were concerned, he was pushing on an open door. this. the dude believed his bullshit 100%. though people always have two debates about it. 1. when did he start forming and believing the bullshit and 2. where did the holocaust start. as in the Functionalism v. intentionalism debates. these have 2 main points 1.Was there a master plan on the part of Adolf Hitler to launch the Holocaust? Intentionalists argue there was such a plan, while functionalists argue there was not. 2.Did the initiative for the Holocaust come from above with orders from Adolf Hitler or from below within the ranks of the German bureaucracy? neither side disputes the reality of the Holocaust, nor is there serious dispute over the premise that Hitler (as Führer) was personally responsible for encouraging the anti-Semitism that allowed the Holocaust to take place, intentionalists argue the initiative came from above, while functionalists contend it came from lower ranks within the bureaucracy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 00:35
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:this. as awful as it was, i think the bombs and the USSR knocking on their door in manchuria forced the government to surrender. This is a bit of a misrepresentation of the functionalist argument. It isn't so much that the initiative came up from below as a grass roots movement within the bureaucracy, but that events unfolded in such a way that made extermination an ever increasing possibility, and one that eventually became attractive in its own right. It has a lot to do with the pressures of the war, the escalating violence in the east, the sudden acquisition of large Jewish populations in Poland (and later Russia), and the possibilities opened up by German control of territory that was more or less run by the military (i.e. no need to put death camps on German soil)*. I mention this because your description made it sound like the murder was a goal pursued by the bureaucrats in an organized manner, while the functionalist approach looks at it as a much more organic process. *note I said death camps. THere's a major distinction between places like Sobibor and places like Buchenwald. edit: for what it's worth, the current scholarly consensus is more or less a mix of the two with a side dish of Kershaw's "Working towards the Fuhrer" thesis to glue them together. Cyrano4747 fucked around with this message at 00:48 on Sep 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 00:44
|
|
|
The B-29 was one thing. The B-36, had it been rushed into service in 1946, would have been something else. It could drop bombs from 49,000 feet, an altitude no piston-engine fighter could approach. At 450 MPH. Even a ME-262 would have gotten one pass at something moving that fast, that high before it was gone.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 01:11
|
|
|
It would have to drop nukes because it wasn't going to hit poo poo with a conventional bomb that high that fast.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 01:12
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:It would have to drop nukes because it wasn't going to hit poo poo with a conventional bomb that high that fast. Pretty sure that was the general idea, yeah
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 01:26
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:Wasn't the whole point that he b-29 flew above the ceiling of Japanese fighters? I think they flew lower in the mass bombings of tokyo, but Wikipedia says the a-bomb was dropped from way the gently caress up. That was the original plan, yes, but the jet stream combined with inaccuracy at that range meant that B-29s largely operated at around 10 000 feet and at night, relying on the lack of Japanese night air defenses and lack of medium altitude flak to carry the day.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 01:55
|
|
|
FuturePastNow posted:Pretty sure that was the general idea, yeah It was. The B-29 was testbed for superbomber doctrine, which the B-36 and much more prominently the B-52 brought to fruition.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 02:29
|
|
|
What are examples of fascist countries that didn't systematically decimate others/their own? Or more broadly, what is fascism? I hear about fascism a lot now, but it's almost synonymous with Nazi Germany & Italy. Stalin was at war against Hitler, but did a fascist-like thing of purging anyone and everyone. Doesn't that make him just as fascist? Is fascist more of a political buzzword no one likes being called, as opposed to a legitimate form of government? Or is there some sort of ideal government that fascist governments try to achieve, but historically end up becoming mega evil? I realize there's probably a zillion bad assumptions and oversimplifications in this question, so apologies for the mental olympics in advance.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 20:39
|
|
|
Fascism as a political ideology has two main pillars: - the totalitarian role of the state - the state embodies the dialectic truth of history. All apparent contradictions and binary phenomena of modern society must be suppressed under the authority or the government, and refurmulated into a unifying, total, all encompassing vision for the nation. all social activities are percieved as belonging within the scope of the state, there is no duality of the private and the public, because this binary system, too, is subsumed into the unifying framework of state, and reduced to conflicting aspects of a single monad. in short, literally everything a person does is political. furthermore the dialectic and permanently evolving nature of our understanding of social organization requires a constant process of rebirth and cleansing through violence. - corporativist government - corporations, state and workers are mobilized to work together through a framework of corporate governance. entrepreneurs, employees and state officials share responsibility for national well-being and serving the public interest, while also jointly fulfilling the functions usually limited to the political system, i.e. the classes of modern economy that would be antagonistic under capitalism and socialism are ostensibly expected to work together as fully submerged elements of a single political entity, serving this political entity through their own means. Simply put, all economic actors are brought into a single forum to serve the state, be the state and make decisions for the state.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 20:53
|
|
|
I got lost in a Reddit post this morning. This guy put together a fantastic Imgur album of captioned pictures from the Ulithi atoll which was used as a supply and repair point in the late pacific war. A Seabee he quotes calls it "The largest anchorage known to man in the history of planet Earth.” http://imgur.com/a/mOvzk
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 21:22
|
|
|
Fascism is a pretty contentious topic when it comes to definitions. Phone posting so I'll let someone else hit the various schools of how to define it, but it's more than corporatist totalitarianism. The tldr is that the best way to ID it is through th a number of defining characteristics that don't all have to be present. Passamore's Fascism : a very short introduction is the best one stop primer of a reasonable length that I've found. If you have even a passing interest in 40s history or political theory you owe it to yourself to get it. edit: there have been a lot of discussions of this in the milhist thread over in A/T including some effort posts by myself and others. Someone who's not on a phone would be awesome if they would find and link those. Cyrano4747 fucked around with this message at 21:47 on Sep 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 21:43
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:I got lost in a Reddit post this morning. This guy put together a fantastic Imgur album of captioned pictures from the Ulithi atoll which was used as a supply and repair point in the late pacific war. A Seabee he quotes calls it "The largest anchorage known to man in the history of planet Earth.” Total Pro Click right there. Some great photos.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 21:52
|
|
|
Sure fascism is more, but also less than any single doctrine, because it was formed organically from a social substrate, and had a rigorous ideological framework imposed onto it retroactively. Even the most influential fascist authors like Gentile, the guy who wrote Mussolini's political philosophy, never got past the problem of their ideas conflicting with the practical life aspects of fascism as a political movement.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 21:56
|
|
|
Ok, got away from my phone and got un-lazy (or rather re-lazy at work) so I found them. For some good effort posts check out what Disinterested has posted in the previous version of the Milhist thread. It's godlmined now, here's the page of his post history where he starts Search my own post history (or just look around Disinterested's posts) and I throw in my own two cents often enough. I disagree with Disinterested on some points here and there, but for the most part I agree with what he says.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 22:05
|
|
|
Avocados posted:What are examples of fascist countries that didn't systematically decimate others/their own? Or more broadly, what is fascism? I hear about fascism a lot now, but it's almost synonymous with Nazi Germany & Italy. Stalin was at war against Hitler, but did a fascist-like thing of purging anyone and everyone. Doesn't that make him just as fascist? Is fascist more of a political buzzword no one likes being called, as opposed to a legitimate form of government? Or is there some sort of ideal government that fascist governments try to achieve, but historically end up becoming mega evil? I realize there's probably a zillion bad assumptions and oversimplifications in this question, so apologies for the mental olympics in advance. The standard definition is totalitarian conservatism. The key here is the classification of ideology as 'conservative' basically meaning cultural traditionalists. There are other kinds of ideologies and other totalitarian states, including Communist regimes(communism), and arguably the French revolutionary state and modern Turkey (nationalism) Different 'fascist' regimes had varying degrees of totalitarianism, for example in Spain the main driver ideology was a sort of totalitarian Catholic conservatism, but Mussolini-style fascists were represented basically in coalition, and the army itself didn't really seem to care that much as long as Spain was a dictatorship snd they were in charge, in Japan you didn't really have a popular mass movement, the army basically took over the country, but big parts of the army were motivated by romantic national conservatism very similar to that of the Nazis. Funny enough Mussolini probably fits that the least of any of the fascist states, Mussolini Fascism is a weird ideology that has very little to say on either cultural traditionalism or race, and is basically just a cult of political violence But as you can see, this is one of those questions where basically people just use it to mean 'thing I don't like' and strenuously argue to keep things they do like out of the definition. In addition to the 'actually leftists are fascists too!!!!' thing, I've seen people argue for every single fascist state excpet Italy (because it gave the name) not really being fascist, with clear undertones of 'they weren't THAT bad'
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 22:22
|
|
|
The question of whether fascism was conservative is debatable. Strictly speaking, fascism in its original form, i.e. Italian fascism, wasn't conservative, and in fact Mussolini routinely worked to destroy traditional institutions that he didn't like. The coatriders often were conservative, but it's a question if they should be called fascists for other reason than being more or less geopolitically aligned with the Axis. I suppose if there were a way to frame Italian fascism in one simple sentence it would be - It's a philosophy that frames the individual as synonymous with the budding consciousness of the rightful social order (the individual is the dialectic, rather than merely thinking about the dialectic), and uses this supposed complicity of the individual on the actualizing of the spirit of the collective reality to enslave him by the elites (compared to Marxism which externalizes its historical materialism into an impersonal theory) steinrokkan fucked around with this message at 22:36 on Sep 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 22:25
|
|
Avocados posted:What are examples of fascist countries that didn't systematically decimate others/their own? António de Oliveira Salazar comes to mind- his ruling of Portugal has many elements of fascism, but wasn't, to my limited knowledge, as horrific as others.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 22:35
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:The question of whether fascism was conservative is debatable. Strictly speaking, fascism in its original form, i.e. Italian fascism, wasn't conservative, and in fact Mussolini routinely worked to destroy traditional institutions that he didn't like. The coatriders often were conservative, but it's a question if they should be called fascists for other reason than being more or less geopolitically aligned with the Axis. Like I said, Mussolini ideology was a weird exception, people take fascism to mean Nazis not Mussolini
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 22:39
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Like I said, Mussolini ideology was a weird exception, people take fascism to mean Nazis not Mussolini They are wrong  E: Most of the minor fascist countries would be more fruitfully studied as patrimonial countries rather than fascist ones. steinrokkan fucked around with this message at 22:46 on Sep 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 22:41
|
|
|
Strong leader, fatherland, purity of blood, strength, honor, glory. Missing any pithy descriptors from that list?
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 22:55
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Search my own post history (or just look around Disinterested's posts) and I throw in my own two cents often enough. I disagree with Disinterested on some points here and there, but for the most part I agree with what he says. And insofar as you do, you can find Cyrano's points generally pretty close to mine for contrast.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 23:04
|
|
|
A country that is a bad dictatorship but doesn't claim to be communist.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 23:11
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Like I said, Mussolini ideology was a weird exception, people take fascism to mean Nazis not Mussolini I wouldn't even call the Nazis conservative in the sense of cultural traditionalists. They had elements of that, but they also had some strains that were very much so. IIRC this was one of the points that Disinterested and I spared over a bit recently, via an argument over whether the KKK could be considered fascist. they weren't  Disinterested
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 23:38
|
|
|
Fascism = Palingenetic ultranationalism. Basically.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 23:41
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:I wouldn't even call the Nazis conservative in the sense of cultural traditionalists. They had elements of that, but they also had some strains that were very much so. IIRC this was one of the points that Disinterested and I spared over a bit recently, via an argument over whether the KKK could be considered fascist. I mean, this discussion always (and I mean literally always, 100% of the times I've ever seen it happen) devolves into "words don't mean anything (because I don't like the implications), you can't draw any parallels at all, everything is unique and incomparable to anything else  "Nazism had its roots in Fichte and Herder derived romantic idealization of medieval German peasant culture. It was an ideology based fundamentally around cultural identity and the return to that of an idealized past. Japanese ideology going back to Kokugagku stuff was very similar, and strong parallels can be drawn with conservative Catholicism as was manifested in France, Spain and Central Europe. I guess you could say 'none of these are conservative lol' but that is the (or at least a) common usage of the term icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 23:53 on Sep 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 23:47
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:I wouldn't even call the Nazis conservative in the sense of cultural traditionalists. They had elements of that, but they also had some strains that were very much so. IIRC this was one of the points that Disinterested and I spared over a bit recently, via an argument over whether the KKK could be considered fascist. Ahem Proto-fascist. Anyway it's an interesting question anyone here with access to academic material can found discussed in brief in: The Five Stages of Fascism - Robert O. Paxton - The Journal of Modern History, Vol. 70, No. 1. (Mar., 1998), pp. 1-23 and further in his footnoted materials. The comparison there is much more about an angry officer class forming a militia and social movement that becomes a para-state apparatus and less about specific ideological points. I can go either way on that one, but I think the possibilities of such a movement were in any event limited by lack of access to 20th century technology and forms of modern political mobilization. Disinterested fucked around with this message at 23:54 on Sep 22, 2016 |
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 23:51
|
|
|
Matthew White, in The Great Big Book of Horrible Things gives a simple summary of fascism;quote:Unlike traditional conservatism, which defended the ruling class of nobility, church, and capitalists against the radical populism of the poor, fascism was itself radical populism in favor of conservative ideals. Like the Communists, fascists rallied the masses with promises of full employment, consumer gratification, and national unity of purpose, but were very un-Communist in their support of the homeland, God, and the natural order of things.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 00:42
|
|
|
The_Other posted:Matthew White, in The Great Big Book of Horrible Things gives a simple summary of fascism; Communism promises consumer gratification?
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 00:45
|
|
|
Count Roland posted:Communism promises consumer gratification? You think iPhones make themselves?
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 01:12
|
|
|
Would you consider a factory worker getting to enjoy the products he's making consumer gratification? If so, then yes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 01:14
|
|
|
Count Roland posted:Communism promises consumer gratification? Depends if you ever know what gratification is.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 01:26
|
|
|
The_Other posted:Matthew White, in The Great Big Book of Horrible Things gives a simple summary of fascism; "Traditional conservatism" was never in theory hostile to the masses of the lower class. The church and nobility were always conceptualized as being their protectors. By the time the 1930s rolled around, however, the traditional feudal power structures in Europe had been completely demolished, and mass democracy and an urban, industrial society created
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 01:38
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Like I said, Mussolini ideology was a weird exception, people take fascism to mean Nazis not Mussolini I think part of the reason for that is because Italian Fascism was such an abysmal failure. Italy was the canker sore on the rear end of the Axis for the entire war, contributing mass of manpower and strategic military bases, but little else. Latter day fascists want to emphasize that it worked in the past - which is why they're not going to use the least successful example of fascism as a template. It's kind of like how latter day Tankies and true Stalinists have morphed into Maoists over time - you can't point to a failed state who espoused your ideology as something to aspire to.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 04:27
|
|
|
FreudianSlippers posted:Fascism = Palingenetic ultranationalism. Also the best one. For those interested, palingenesis is the idea of "rebirth." Fascism was not conservative because it wasn't about preserving the existing order, but building a *new* order that contained the lost, mythological essence of the nation or race. That's why fascism in the European context had this weird aesthetic blend of classicism with the ultra-modern present. The Nazis, for instance, did not want to restore the Kaiser. They were looking much further back in history. And while it's true the Nazis and conservative elites collaborated, there were important differences. I see fascism as extremely right wing though. Another important element that ties into corporatism and totalitarianism is the nation (and/or race) being bound together like an organism, same with individuals being bound together with the state. So in the fascist worldview, undesirables like dissidents, foreigners, the disabled, and racial others were the equivalent of an infection that had to be eliminated. It was all part of a project to build a stronger, healthier body. Like you have mass physical exercise to build stronger bodies, and thus a stronger state, but that's just one part of a holistic program including mass extermination. BrutalistMcDonalds fucked around with this message at 10:15 on Sep 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 04:38
|
|
|
Count Roland posted:Communism promises consumer gratification? Yes? Communism doesn't try to hide the material motivation of the worker. Calling it a consumer may be controversial, but hey.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 07:15
|
|
|
When people bring up Herder as an example of conservative roots in fascism, they should remember that H. had an almost fetishistic fascination with the organic, mystical quality of his pet ethnic groups (the Slavs), and used this to rail against the artifice and decadence of what would be normally considered conservative West. I think he was pretty emblematic of the aforementioned sentiment of burning the whole drat place down and starting again from an untainted point of national spirit, present in each member of the nation. steinrokkan fucked around with this message at 07:23 on Sep 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 07:19
|
|
|
What happend with german embasies in neutral countries after the war?
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 09:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 00:39 |
|
|
steinrokkan posted:When people bring up Herder as an example of conservative roots in fascism, they should remember that H. had an almost fetishistic fascination with the organic, mystical quality of his pet ethnic groups (the Slavs), and used this to rail against the artifice and decadence of what would be normally considered conservative West. I don't intend a derail to the present, but I think it's fascinating (and eerily, historically disturbing) how in the U.S. right now, there's been a split between ideological conservatives and Trump, with some of the most ideological ones refusing to endorse him, while most -- right on cue -- lining up to collaborate. There's even a term being thrown around: "Vichy Republicans."
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 10:21
|
|